God v Science v State of mind

[AlanG]

Holy shit (no pun) I went over then 10k word limit

I would have thought it more logical that life came from life and intelligence came from intelligence rather than life from non-life and intelligence from matter.

Ok you say intelligence must come from intelligence and coming from matter or (I presume, non intelligence) is illogical.
Then God must also have come from intelligence, whatever created him was created, ad nauseum. So you keep going that way or eventually stop and say whatever created God (*10^4gazillion) was not created then you have proven yourselve illogical.

If you say intelligence came from matter then you can say we were not created, or you could say we were created from God, who just appeared. These positions would both hold with the statement or belief that we came from matter.

To believe that energy is infinite and the entire universe is chance seems a greater leap of faith than any religion. I also find it hard to believe that the entire universe is here solely for our benefit.

then youre not religious then. God created the Universe and Earth for us did he not?

[AlanG]

Originally posted by Red_Baron
God exists as a stae of mind for Billions of people through out the world. Therefore He/She does exist as a collective beleif. Whether God has an a actual form with the power to create floods and create life is another question.

but its also very important. How many people have been killed for their failure to believe that God does have the power to do these things the way the ruling religious leaders say happenned?

But if a beleif is strong enough to give a dying man hope, or to help a widow greive then what does it matter if there is an concious entity?

Although I am not against giving this kind of hope, its the way the religions abuse the fear of death to get money from people that really gets on my back. From the buying of less time in purgatory(cant spell), to constant donations and 10% tithe. Hey tell you what, give me your money and Ill guarantee you a top spot and the best treatment when you die. Hey it doesnt matter I'm making it up, as long as it gives you hope! *alan starts new religion*

Also to argue against the existance of a God using science is slightly misguided. If he does exist and is powerful enough to create the earth I think he could maybe figure out how to create an airflow within an ark. he'd probably just freeze all the animals is some suspended animation or something and if he ruined the earth with a flood, maybe he built it again.

so why is none of this mentioned in the Bible, surely such a thing would show how caring and omniscient God really is.

If you take the main belief that God is everywhere and God is always listening you'll see that part is true as every country and society ( almost ) has a religion so he's in every country. And when was the last time you were sitting asking yourself a question only to hear God reply "shut it I'm too busy to listen to your problems".

I dont generally hear any voices in my head when Im sitting alone and anyone who does should seek immediate medical help

If God made the world and us he also gave us the power to understand science so if he made the rules of science he could easily make it look like there was no proof of anything he's done 'cause if there was he'd dissapear

yes a God who appears and speaks to Moses, comes to Earth through his only Son and constantly watches over us, also completely hides any evidence of this happenning, because thats a great idea because, erm help me here.

P.S. god loves you and gives you the free will to do whatever you want, but if you stray from the specific set rules he demands youre gonna burn in hell forver, but while youre being tortured forever in the hell he created remember that one thing.

GOD LOVES YOU!!!!

[alien_syndm]

Scientists for and against creation/evolution are both guilty of ignoring evidence which doesn't suit them, it happens all the time unfortunately.

30 million years and couple of weeks old is a pretty big adjustment. From what you say it would sound like you would already have to have an estimate as to how old the article is before you can date it which doesn't really sound too great. There is some evidence to suggest that the earth is not anywhere near as old as scientists think. Someone made a good analogy once, if a miracle were to occur , take water into wine for instance, the wine would be seconds old on being created, yet if a scientist were to examine it, he may come to the conclusion it were a few years old due to alcohol content, time for fermentation etc.

When scientists are dating things over millions and even billions of years you suggest there is no evidence to the contary that certain conditions important to the dating method remained constant? What about such things as comets, ice ages, continental drift, mass volcanic eruptions that are all supposed to have happened, these would of course have no effect ?

Could you give me a worked example of the evolution of a creature from one species to a completely different one then? Reptile to bird etc, wiht intermediates shown depending on which type of evolution you say has occurred.


I could also add noone can actually prove whether the earth revolves round the sun or the sun revolves round the earth either, which do you believe to be true ?


Ah yes natural selection does not allow for creation of new species, a point I would have taken you up on had you claimed it did. Do you believe evolution has occurred, if so by what means may i ask ?


You must have missed the part in the bible where it talks about god giving man free will, we are not robots. I mean why didn't he just make us immortal then noone would ever die right ?


You are nit picking on my choice of words. I know what a proof in mathematics is having done many at university thankyou. You need to define what a theory is and what a fact is. I get the impression (mistakingly perhaps) that you seem to think they are the same thing. OK so no scientist "proves" anything, when can (s)he claim it is a fact and when is it merely a belief?


Scientists have differing opinions on things and often the case is different schools of thought were all right in their own way. I do not have a quarrel here.


I am referring to the egyptians fondness for making minatures of many things in their pyramids. Miniatures of their large life counterparts. The aerofoil shape is present in many of these minature "birds" as they are called and they glide perfectly.
I presume you knew about the batteries I was referring to.

What happens if a scientist puts forward something a little "off the wall" or perhaps against current thinking. They get completely grilled for it. If it doesn't fit in with current thinking it just has to be wrong. Look what almost happened to galileo!!
At first they are heretics yet only later do they begin to accept what they were saying could be true. Do you actually think the hardcore scientific community would let through a paper from a creationist bulldog if it seriously fucked up some of their ideas even if it was absolutely water-tight with? I don't think so somehow. As a semi relevant aside find reading about the scientist Tesla very interesting, great scientist, way ahead of his time many say, yet his downfall was being a poor businessman.


I do not claim to know the answer to which one it is! If it even is any of those.

You have made basically the same point I made further up in this thread with regard to the literally of things.


I think I have been a little ambiguous about the einstein thing, it wasn't the matter/energy thing I was meaning. There is an article about it in one of the more recent editions of new scientist. To take a short quote which should convey the general point.....

"Our best description of space-time is cracking up. And even as special relativity falls apart, a contraversial theory is poised to steal its crown, " says David Harris


"Amenlino-Camelia's rewrite of relativity has so far taken four years, but he is no longer working along"


Our intelligence coming from a supreme being with an intelligence greater than us, this creator would be the inifinite thing, thats the whole point about that concept, you are not extrapolating back to what created god and so forth. It is not illogical at all.


Yes you are correct, I am not religious.

[Red_Baron]

Alan I think you missed the whole point of my argument and just picked out the pieces of text you could argue against. it's called non-contextual contradiction.

but its also very important. How many people have been killed for their failure to believe that God does have the power to do these things the way the ruling religious leaders say happenned?

This is a failure of humans and does not disprove the existance of a God or entity.

Although I am not against giving this kind of hope, its the way the religions abuse the fear of death to get money from people that really gets on my back. From the buying of less time in purgatory(cant spell), to constant donations and 10% tithe. Hey tell you what, give me your money and Ill guarantee you a top spot and the best treatment when you die. Hey it doesnt matter I'm making it up, as long as it gives you hope! *alan starts new religion*

Again it doesn not prove the non-existance on a God or Entity and yet again highlights the shortcomings of the human race. Which is of course why Jesus came down to earth so save us from ourselves.

so why is none of this mentioned in the Bible, surely such a thing would show how caring and omniscient God really is.

If you;d read the rest of my post I said one theory for God not providing any solid proof is that to reveal himself to everyone would disprove other beliefs or maybe all beliefs so he disprove the existance of himself. He/She/It has to exist as a collective set of beliefs which fit into the different society, Our beleif is only an interpritation.

I dont generally hear any voices in my head when Im sitting alone and anyone who does should seek immediate medical help

On the contrary you do. it is called conciousness. If there is no brain activity you would be classed brain dead and be on DNR notice. I think this is a more serious medical problem than thinking. Which is of course what makes us Human. If our ancestors never asked themselves questions we'd still be in trees or in the sea

yes a God who appears and speaks to Moses, comes to Earth through his only Son and constantly watches over us, also completely hides any evidence of this happenning, because thats a great idea because, erm help me here.

see above ( just a theory of course)

P.S. god loves you and gives you the free will to do whatever you want, but if you stray from the specific set rules he demands youre gonna burn in hell forver, but while youre being tortured forever in the hell he created remember that one thing.

Which part of the Bible did you read? Again it is Human self apointed religious leaders who made these threats. The Christian Bible gives a message of trying to be the best person you can buy abiding by the 10 comandments. But if you stray God will forgive. He forgave us for Killing his son. There is no sense of elitism. I don't believe everything in the Bible, but that's not what it's all about it's about having something to believe in.

This is how all religious wars start due to a feeling that " I am right you are wrong" when in fact all religions are right ( except one's involving money and sountern Americans) Anarchy is also a religion and Douglas Adams made a speach in America about 4 years ago on Why God doesn't exist. Much as I respect the man it should have been titled "This is my interpritation".

We're all right when we say what God is or isnt. But it's actually quite reckless to try and disprove everyone elses Religous, King Richard tried it and fucked it up.

[AlanG]

Originally posted by alien_syndm
[b]Scientists for and against creation/evolution are both guilty of ignoring evidence which doesn't suit them, it happens all the time unfortunately.

I just typed a post again containing 11k words with pictures added n everything, went forward, whinged about picture size, went back and it deleted my reply Ill post again later

[AlanG]

Originally posted by Red_Baron
Alan I think you missed the whole point of my argument and just picked out the pieces of text you could argue against. it's called non-contextual contradiction.

I didnt reply to parts that were either all a same paragraph (only the part of it that was important) to cut down the replied post size, in the same way if you put a pargraph that was something that was huge and had nothing to discuss in it, then I cropped it to reduce size

This is a failure of humans and does not disprove the existance of a God or entity. Again it doesn not prove the non-existance on a God or Entity and yet again highlights the shortcomings of the human race. Which is of course why Jesus came down to earth so save us from ourselves.

you cant prove the non existance of something, but can "prove"(not to get bogged down in semantics, show something is true, infer from data whatever) which is the point. Anyone making an extraordinary claim should provide some evidence for it. There is a Hell and Heaven are extraordinary claims, there is a God, extraordinary claim, no evidence for it though.

If you;d read the rest of my post I said one theory for God not providing any solid proof is that to reveal himself to everyone would disprove other beliefs or maybe all beliefs so he disprove the existance of himself. He/She/It has to exist as a collective set of beliefs which fit into the different society, Our beleif is only an interpritation.

God created us and the Earth. He proves his existance to us and everyone believes in him and worships him (that other part he loves) the no one goes to hell. Seems best outcome and what a truly compassionate and loving creature would do. However he doesnt, he creates Satan who falls and then allows him to carry on doing his thing, temptation n aw that. Then loads of his creations go to Hell. Wonderful loving God indeed.

On the contrary you do. it is called conciousness. If there is no brain activity you would be classed brain dead and be on DNR notice. I think this is a more serious medical problem than thinking. Which is of course what makes us Human. If our ancestors never asked themselves questions we'd still be in trees or in the sea

so if the voices in head and voices that prophets hear is just them thinking, why does this show they were led by God? Due to us all thinking and thus "hearing our own inner voice, whatever" I always understood the religious leaders to be saying that there was a seperate voice, that was God. If God speaking is the same as us thinking how do we distinguish?

Which part of the Bible did you read? Again it is Human self apointed religious leaders who made these threats. The Christian Bible gives a message of trying to be the best person you can buy abiding by the 10 comandments.

which ten commandments though hehe(its not as straightforward a question as you may think)

But if you stray God will forgive. He forgave us for Killing his son.

does he forgive his creations burning in Hell, is that his forgiveness? As you can see I love the absurdity of the whole Hell torture forever thing

There is no sense of elitism. I don't believe everything in the Bible, but that's not what it's all about it's about having something to believe in.

So what is it you read from the Bible that you believe.

What I believe is that we are born and we die, then were worm food. Guess what this means that I know my time here is limited and that I should do the best I can with my life and try to leave the world in a better place then when I came.

This is how all religious wars start due to a feeling that " I am right you are wrong" when in fact all religions are right

So Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all right for believing in one God
Hinduism is right for believing in thousands of Gods
modern Paganism/Wicca is right for believing in the mother god etc
Buddhism is right for believing in no God?

Yep I can see how theyre ALL right.

[quest]
( except one's involving money and sountern Americans)
[/quote]
ah so you are now binning Christianty, Islam and Judaism due to their obsession with collecting vast wealth for their leadership then, ah well. Still leaves Wicca, Paganism, Buddhism among others as all correct.

Anarchy is also a religion

anarchy isnt a religion

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

if you take last one that can be applied to anuthing. My religion is going on the 20past 8 bus in the morning!!!

and Douglas Adams made a speach in America about 4 years ago on Why God doesn't exist. Much as I respect the man it should have been titled "This is my interpritation".

Read what he put about God in the HitchHikers guide, very funny indeed.

We're all right when we say what God is or isnt. But it's actually quite reckless to try and disprove everyone elses Religous, King Richard tried it and fucked it up.

Im quite happy to let people believe what they want, its when this religious belief is thrown upon them that I draw the line. Such as burning of heretics, indoctoring kids in primary schools with prayers etc(believe me I *could* go on hehe). America is way more fucked up than here though for religious/state divisions though :s

[AlanG]

lost original reply, and Im crap at second replies

Originally posted by alien_syndm
Scientists for and against creation/evolution are both guilty of ignoring evidence which doesn't suit them, it happens all the time unfortunately.

examples please

30 million years and couple of weeks old is a pretty big adjustment. From what you say it would sound like you would already have to have an estimate as to how old the article is before you can date it which doesn't really sound too great.

no, but if you hand a scientist something and tell him it should date to between x and y years and that it was found in Z rocks, he will date it using the methods for that X-Y period and then adjust for being in the Z rocks. So if its 10weeks old and he uses a method involving 1.5million year half lifes etc then of course its gonna throw the result out of whack. As I said before -
shit in ->shit out.

There is some evidence to suggest that the earth is not anywhere near as old as scientists think.

such as?

When scientists are dating things over millions and even billions of years you suggest there is no evidence to the contary that certain conditions important to the dating method remained constant? What about such things as comets, ice ages, continental drift, mass volcanic eruptions that are all supposed to have happened, these would of course have no effect ?

the reason we know about volcanic eruptions millions of years ago is from the evidence in teh goilithic column and the dating methods used to determine the half life of the minerals found. So you cant on one hand say dating methods are wrong to attack science, then try and use dating methods as evidence against science.

Could you give me a worked example of the evolution of a creature from one species to a completely different one then? Reptile to bird etc, wiht intermediates shown depending on which type of evolution you say has occurred.

will put that in the post I lost, I had some chromosome maps of great apes and was also looking for the transitional skulls from ape ancestor that diverged to gorilla and man, couldnt find that pic again though. I figure youd prefer human evolution than two animals you may have never seen before?

I could also add noone can actually prove whether the earth revolves round the sun or the sun revolves round the earth either, which do you believe to be true ?

from the available evidence I think the Earth revolves around the sun, otherwise it would require the earth to stand stationary and everythign to revolve around, including stars, at incredible speeds, that there is no evidence to show, evidence to the contrary.

Ah yes natural selection does not allow for creation of new species, a point I would have taken you up on had you claimed it did. Do you believe evolution has occurred, if so by what means may i ask ?

I had to be careful there as if Id said "natural selection occurs on that animal" you could have then said "its dead" if i said it doesnt you could have said "see natural selection doesnt occur!"

Evolution occurs, the means is mutation and natural selection acting upon a population along with effects of the environment, such as geographic isolation leading to one species eventually diverging into 2 specific non interbreeding species(there are examples of 2 different species that can interbreed, and this is also a major way new plant species appear)

You must have missed the part in the bible where it talks about god giving man free will, we are not robots. I mean why didn't he just make us immortal then noone would ever die right ?

there is an early argument against god that asks if a baby goes to hell, as it had the free will to worship god, and did not. Likewise remote tribes who have never heard "the word". Do these people get saved or do they not. If they do it means you can be saved without God, if they dont, God can hardly be a "just loving creature" Ive never seen a fantastic reply to this

You are nit picking on my choice of words. I know what a proof in mathematics is having done many at university thankyou. You need to define what a theory is and what a fact is. I get the impression (mistakingly perhaps) that you seem to think they are the same thing. OK so no scientist "proves" anything, when can (s)he claim it is a fact and when is it merely a belief?

They use data to hypothesise and then work further to make theories around the data they have. Belief and theory can be interchangable but not exactly.

If I were to say i had 10pence in my pocket would you "believe" me or need evidence towards it, its not an extraordinary claim, you probably have 10pence in your own pocket just now. So wether you believe I do, or consider it the "alan has 10pence theory" is of no matter, even though you only have me saying its true and no data to show that its true.

If I were to say that I had 1million pounds in my pocket would you "believe" it? Probably not. Its an extraordinary claim so requires extraordinary evidence to support it. Would you saying you thought I did be the "belief" that i did or the theory? After all you have no data to show it but its highly unlikely.

Its the same way most atheists see religion. Theres a giant sky god with the power of life and death, who also loves you and wants you to be with him but will torture you forever if you dont bow down and worship him and follow his commands. Even with no evidence of his existance or of heaven, or hell.

I am referring to the egyptians fondness for making minatures of many things in their pyramids. Miniatures of their large life counterparts. The aerofoil shape is present in many of these minature "birds" as they are called and they glide perfectly.
I presume you knew about the batteries I was referring to.

The Egyptians were very big on precision and exact mathematical similarities. It would be surprising if they showed no other evidence rather than the pyramids of this. That they could build fantastic toy flying birds is no great leap of faith when you look at the pyramids and realise they created our base 10 numeric system.

What happens if a scientist puts forward something a little "off the wall" or perhaps against current thinking. They get completely grilled for it. If it doesn't fit in with current thinking it just has to be wrong. Look what almost happened to galileo!!

galileo was imprisoned by the theocratic leaders of the time for daring to suggest the Earth was not flat as the Bible was interpreted to say (4 corners, space above, seeing whole world from top of a mountain etc). Same way mathematicians ahd to fudge their results to show pi to be equal to 3, as the bible infers.

At first they are heretics yet only later do they begin to accept what they were saying could be true. Do you actually think the hardcore scientific community would let through a paper from a creationist bulldog if it seriously fucked up some of their ideas even if it was absolutely water-tight with?

I saw figures for scientific papers submitted for peer review over past few years, was something like non-creationists 3000, creationists - 87. And NONE of the creationists papers were about creationism. So its not a case of letting them through they arent even submitted. To see why creation science is not science, read the pledge that they need to agree to to join ICR.

You have made basically the same point I made further up in this thread with regard to the literally of things.

glad we agree on some things

Einstein thing...

yeah I remember reading about that. In the same way no one who wants to read about evolution reads "Origin Of Species" as being absolutely correct. remember if Einstein was completely incorrect we wouldnt have working nukes. Just the theories are refined over the following years.

Our intelligence coming from a supreme being with an intelligence greater than us, this creator would be the inifinite thing, thats the whole point about that concept, you are not extrapolating back to what created god and so forth. It is not illogical at all.

but claiming there is a god that hides the evidence of his existance can be parodies by the IPU. There is an invisible Pink Unicorn who loves you but if you do not follow his rules you will go to be tortured forever. Anyone who disagrees with him works for Satan. He hides his existance from you. Prove his nonexistance. You cant. Is it any more absurd to believe in the IPU than God?

Yes you are correct, I am not religious.

phew cant remember all I put earlier, will add to the showing of transitional form of species later, there are loads on talkorigins, if yuo cant wait Id suggets you go there.

[GemDeLaCreme]

this thread should be called battle of the brains

[Ross]

I will come back when i can see straight...